Conservation groups joining fees

[Oneye]

Just curious, in the world of prices going up always and on everything, has anyone noticed any conservation groups that have raised their joining fees? Usually $35. I’m surprised we haven’t seen entry level membership prices raised by conservation groups. That $35 cannot be going as far as it did even 4 or 5 years ago. License fees are being raised by game agencies. Just curious have you seen that price increase with any groups you belong to?

Btw I would totally understand/support a $10 increase on membership fees if needed, just have thought about how I haven’t seen any really raise them and how that $35 can’t be going as far these days.

 

[Ben Long]

You are 100 percent correct that $35 doesn't go as far as it did. But I think a lot of groups understand that many live on tight budgets, too, and want to be welcoming to those folks. At the same time, they may provide more "levels" of membership ("partner," "sustaining", "life", etc.) and encourage more giving by those who can afford it. I consider the basic membership the floor, not the ceiling. If a group shares your values and your goals, than by all means "level up" and give beyond! They need it and there is a lot of work to be done.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

Just curious, in the world of prices going up always and on everything, has anyone noticed any conservation groups that have raised their joining fees? Usually $35. I’m surprised we haven’t seen entry level membership prices raised by conservation groups. That $35 cannot be going as far as it did even 4 or 5 years ago. License fees are being raised by game agencies. Just curious have you seen that price increase with any groups you belong to?

Btw I would totally understand/support a $10 increase on membership fees if needed, just have thought about how I haven’t seen any really raise them and how that $35 can’t be going as far these days.

As someone who used to help run a membership organization that had varying levels of membership and produced a publication (think RMEF), that base level membership fee is purposely kept low to accommodate as many folks as possible. For a few reasons. One is that the greater the membership numbers, the easier the sell to advertisers and sponsors. Secondly, that fee likely covers only what it costs to manage your membership and send you the publication and nothing more.

That's where @Ben Long's comment comes in. If you can do more, do more - because that's when your membership dollars go further.

 

[Oneye]

You are 100 percent correct that $35 doesn't go as far as it did. But I think a lot of groups understand that many live on tight budgets, too, and want to be welcoming to those folks. At the same time, they may provide more "levels" of membership ("partner," "sustaining", "life", etc.) and encourage more giving by those who can afford it. I consider the basic membership the floor, not the ceiling. If a group shares your values and your goals, than by all means "level up" and give beyond! They need it and there is a lot of work to be done.

Agreed, $50, $75 and $100 levels are helpful. I have joined at higher membership levels to several groups the last year. I’ve also been attending more banquets than I normally do. Conservation is expensive and just becoming more so.

 

[Keep on]

I haven't seen the membership prices rise, but the cost for event tickets has certainly gone up, as you would expect. Raffle tickets are up in price as well. I think this is where most of the organizations moneys come from. The base membership is mostly just covering the price of a magazine subscription and some salaries in the organization.

 

[Elky Welky]

Many conservation orgs are also putting less money into publishing materials, ie: magazines and mailers, in favor of digital communications via email and social media. That cuts costs substantially.